Haven't seen the red card incident but the Bath fans sound pretty incensed over it.Reports that Ashton blocked Watsons path and he tripped & clattered into Goode when he was airborne?Anyone shed some more light on it?

Bath fans are wrong. It's a red card all day long. Watson runs into Ashton, Ashton does not block him, he then decides to keep going and takes Goode out in the air, and Goode lands on his left shoulder/neck. it's reckless and dangerous and by the laws of the game a red.

Bath fans need to stop whinging as Cook was lucky not to see red for stamping on Mako's head as well and Wilson is also likely to be cited for gouging Kruis.

Ozzy3213 wrote:Bath fans are wrong. It's a red card all day long. Watson runs into Ashton, Ashton does not block him, he then decides to keep going and takes Goode out in the air, and Goode lands on his left shoulder/neck. it's reckless and dangerous and by the laws of the game a red..

hope you do not mind, but I do not view you as impartial in this discussion.

All I can do is laugh at that to be honest LT. I'm no Bath fan for sure, but i'm quite capable of having an impartial discussion about them, it's a game after all, and the fact I'm not a fan doesn't change the fact that both McCall and Ford said afterwards that by the laws of the game it's a red card.

I too have sympathy with Watson, I don't think there was any malice or intent in what he did, but he was reckless, it was dangerous and it's 100% a red card.

Watsons card was crazy... not that it was a red, but that the laws say it is a red. That is insanity, sheer insanity. Red should never be given for any action without intent.

Feel awful for Watson as Ashton commits the first penalty offence. If Watsons momentum isn't checked he gets up to contest that, no worries. If this is the way it is they should ban jumping for the ball. Seriously. Because that kind of stuff is always going to happen, with the best will in the world, and it's not dirty play. It's part of the risks of the game, like a collapsed scrum or a clash of heads. If you want to reduce all these risks, take it out of the game, don't pass the responsibility onto opposition players.

Sorry Notch, I can't agree with that. The laws of the game are complex enough without asking the referee to decipher intent. Watson only has himself to blame. he runs into Ashton, who does very little in all honesty, and then instead of stopping his run as he knows he won't get to Goode in time to challenge, he hurtles on and takes him out in the air.

I agree there is no intent, but it's reckless and dangerous and could have potentially ended Goode's career. It's a red, and should be a red.

What would have ended Goodes career- Watson accidentally colliding with him, or Goode jumping for the ball in the first place? Seems like only one of two factors is currently being addressed. Two players chasing the same ball collide and all the responsibility goes on one. I'm not saying it wasn't a penalty- it could have even been a yellow. But a red is just...

The risk is no justification. I've seen players have their careers ended by concussions sustained in completely legal tackles, or high tackles that are unintentional. Every time you take the ball into contact there is a chance that a career ending injury will be sustained. And yet we accept that that is part of the risk you take when you cross the whitewash. There is an inherent risk in all sports, and that risk is hugely magnified in contact sports. We need to make the game as safe as we can without neutering it entirely, but penalising what happened here does not make the game safer- you can only deter an incident which is intentional. There is no deterrent for accidental collisions and as long as players keep jumping for 50/50 balls this kind of thing is bound to keep happening from time to time, through no real fault of either player.

I understand this law when applied to tip tackles, because their the tackler is responsible for putting the man in that situation. But here Goode chooses to jump to compete for the ball, but all the responsibility for his safety is put onto the other player. He jumps to gain a competitive advantage over that player in contesting the high ball and if the other player doesn't check his run in time or mistimes his jump they can be sent off or sin binned with no penalty whatsoever to the defending fullback. There will be collisions- common sense dictates that the rules of the game as they stand mean this is inevitable.

Now players are reluctant to challenge in case they end up like Watson, which effectively ends the concept of having a fair contest in the air because all the responsibility for the collision goes onto the chaser. It's therefore uncompetitive and apparently its dangerous enough that the slightest accidental contact can put you in a dangerous situation. So why does it remain legal at all? We're banning the wrong action. Either we accept this sort of thing happens now and again or we ban the aerial contest. Those for me are the two fair solutions.

Certainly as a coach I think you would tell your chasing players to focus on getting the man when he is down rather than competing. From the other side you would tell your fullback to jump as high as possible and tuck your legs up so any contact may well get you a penalty.

I think the ref made the correct decision although if safety is the main point then props collapsing scrums must be just as dangerous.

Anyhow Sarries were the better team and would have won even if Bath had 16 on the field, such was their dominance.

Just catching up on highlights. Really unfortunate that Watson red, a little common sense would have been nice but I don't think the ref really had a choice the moment Goode landed on his head...it was the right decision by the rules of the game.

Really urine poor from Ashton though getting stuck into afters after his obstruction directly led to the incident.

Don't know how I feel about a rule change regarding jumping for high balls. If players have to stay on the ground they are going to be getting absolutely smashed in half by chasing players. Personally if I was competing for a high ball I'd be happier jumping knowing that everyone is playing to the same 'compete but don't interfere with the player landing' mentality....than standing feet planted knowing I'm going to get hit by a steam train the second I catch it.

mid_gen wrote:Just catching up on highlights. Really unfortunate that Watson red, a little common sense would have been nice but I don't think the ref really had a choice the moment Goode landed on his head...it was the right decision by the rules of the game.

I reckon goode takes lessons from tom Daley to make sure he comes down head first and gets a player sent off

mid_gen wrote:Don't know how I feel about a rule change regarding jumping for high balls. If players have to stay on the ground they are going to be getting absolutely smashed in half by chasing players. Personally if I was competing for a high ball I'd be happier jumping knowing that everyone is playing to the same 'compete but don't interfere with the player landing' mentality....than standing feet planted knowing I'm going to get hit by a steam train the second I catch it.

I can tell you with no doubts, as a doctor I can guarantee that preventing jumping for a high kick will significantly increase my business.